A Section 156(3) referral is invalid without prior police-complaint compliance and a supporting affidavit.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners and others forged her and another heir’s signatures in connection with a compromise petition before the High Court concerning inherited land, and thereby obtained orders and compensation from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

The complainant filed PCR No. 181/2018; the Magistrate referred it to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of Crime No. 81/2018 for offences under Sections 416, 418, 420, 463, 466, 468, 470 and 471 IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing, arguing that the complainant had not demonstrated prior recourse to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or filed the affidavit required by Priyanka Srivastava.

The petition was recorded as abated against petitioner No. 1.

Whether the Magistrate’s referral of the private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was legally sustainable when the complaint did not establish prior recourse under Section 154(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.

Whether the absence of the affidavit contemplated in Priyanka Srivastava rendered the referral order, and consequently the criminal proceedings, liable to be quashed.

Under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C., a complainant seeking police action must first approach the police station and, if necessary, the senior police officer; under Section 156(3), the Magistrate may direct investigation before taking cognizance.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, requires an application under Section 156(3) to be supported by an affidavit and to disclose prior recourse under Section 154(1) and (3); the Court also referred to Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639, and Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020, decided 16 January 2025, in considering those safeguards.

The Court distinguished a pre-cognizance referral under Section 156(3) from proceedings in which the Magistrate proceeds under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The Court found that the complaint and accompanying material did not state that the complainant had first approached the police under Section 154(1) and (3), and that no supporting documents or affidavit establishing compliance had been filed.

Although the Magistrate had noted the documents produced and referred the complaint for investigation, the Court held that the Magistrate had not applied the required safeguards before making the Section 156(3) referral.

It also held that the Magistrate’s order referred the matter for investigation at the pre-cognizance stage, so the taking of cognizance was not appropriate.

On that basis, it found grounds to quash the proceedings.

It reserved liberty to the complainant to proceed in accordance with law.

The petition had abated as against petitioner No. 1.